Minnesota

View: Tree | Flat

My .02

Posted 7/11/2012 at 6:53:42 AM

I don't think there's every been a time when I had to be in love to have sex or had to have sex to be in love.  I understand having a connection of some sort, and as for LIP, I don't recall him EVER saying anything about NOT having a connection.  However, the article seems obviously written by a main-stream vanilla who grew up on Cinderella and is determined to propagate it to the masses to spread the bull shit.

The thing is: 90% of my clients are very HAPPILY married men.  The divorce rate (as the right-wingers constantly bitch about) is way high.  My love is big enough for more people.  I don't believe in monogamy, and I do have a primary partner.  I care about my clients that I have those connections with and enjoy those sessions way more than the VERY few I haven't.

Love is love.  Sex is sex.  They are not mutually INclusive or EXclusive but both have their fluid ways.  Who the fuck are we to try to define it or claim anything about it other than our personal preferences (which ALSO evolve)...

 

Current Thread